The case, AT&T Mobility v Concepcion, pits consumers and class action lawyers against corporations and arbitrators. Dahlia Lithwick at Slate explains why the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in the case "could profoundly affect anyone in America who has a cell phone contract, credit card, an employment contract, or aspirations of landing a job at Hooters".
Increasingly, many such contracts, including the cell phone contract at issue in this case, contain arbitration clauses. And the Roberts court has really loved arbitration clauses of late. In this particular case, the arbitration clause between AT&T and its customers provided that both parties to the agreement could bring claims only as individuals, not as part of a class action.
Before the case was argued yesterday, there was rampant speculation that the case might sound the death knell of class action litigation generally. After oral arguments, not so much.
Tony Mauro at National Law Journal, in Class actions on the ropes? Not Likely?: "Justices seemed reluctant to second-guess a California court ruling that was the basis for deciding that such clauses are "unconscionable" under state law and cannot be enforced, even when they are embedded in arbitration clauses."
Greg Stohr at Bloomberg News, Consumer Arbitration Case Divides U.S. Supreme Court: Several members of the court today indicated they were hesitant to second-guess California’s rules designed to protect consumers from one-sided contracts. “Who are we to say that the state is wrong about that?” Justice Elena Kagan asked.
Jess Bravin at WSJ, Justices Question Contracts That Block Class Actions: "At Tuesday's Supreme Court arguments, several justices seemed disinclined to second-guess state courts applying a bread-and-butter aspect of state law."
Robert Barnes at the Washington Post, Supreme Court hears challenge on class-action arbitration suits: "The justices' questions suggested a more limited ruling on the facts of the specific case rather than the broad decision on class-action suits that the 26 groups submitting friend-of-the-court briefs had addressed."
